Noland v. Attorney General of Commonwealth et al, No. 5:2011cv00061 - Document 6 (E.D. Ky. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered, 1) 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Copurs is DENIED. 2) Fayette County Sheriff's 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 3) Court will enter an appropriate judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 8/4/2011. (SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Petitioner(via US Mail)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON LEON ROZELL NOLAND, JR., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COMMONWEALTH, et. al., Respondents. Civil Action No. 11-61-JBC MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER **** **** **** **** On January 19, 2011, petitioner Leon Rozell Noland, Jr., filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to KRS 419.020 and 28 § 2241, violation of Extradition Act in the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, captioned Leon R. Noland, Jr. v. Attorney General of Commonwealth, Sheriff, Governor of Kentucky, U.S. Attorney General, and U.S. Marshals, Civil Action No. 10-CI-7156. [R. 2-1]. In his petition, Noland alleges that on November 3, 2009, he was arrested by police officers employed by the city of Richmond, Kentucky, to answer to state charges pending against him in Somerset and Richmond, Kentucky. On November 12, 2009, he was transferred to the custody of federal officials to face federal criminal charges pending against him in United States v. Noland, No. 5:09-cr-00176-JBC (E.D. Ky. 2009). Noland argues that because no extradition proceedings occurred under Kentucky s enactment of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act ( UCEA ), KRS 440.370, authorizing the transfer of custody, he is entitled under Kentucky s habeas statute, KRS 419.020, to the dismissal of the federal charges. [R. 2-1 at 3-4] On February 8, 2011, the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Marshals Service filed a Notice of Removal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) and § 1442(a)(1). [R. 2] These respondents assert that the relief sought in the petition is in the nature of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as it seeks release from custody from pending federal criminal charges. [R. 2 at 1] In their response to the petition, the respondents challenge the petition on numerous procedural grounds: that neither federal official is a proper respondent; Noland has not exhausted his available remedies; Noland has raised this identical claim in his federal criminal case; and a pretrial detainee may not seek release from federal custody from a state court. [R. 4] Fayette County Sheriff Kathy Witt has filed a separate motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that she lacks custody of the petitioner to grant the only relief requested of her, to produce Noland to the Court. [R. 5] Noland has not filed any response to either document. Setting aside for the moment the numerous procedural objections to Noland s claim, the Court will deny the petition on the most fundamental ground: it is substantively meritless. The United States of America is not a state within the meaning of the UCEA because it does not constitute any other state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the United States of America. K.R.S. 440.160. Accordingly, [t]his statute creates no right, however, where the receiving jurisdiction is the United States. ... the protections of [the] UCEA only apply to transfers between actual states of the Union. Trafny v. United States, 311 F. App x 92, 94 (10th Cir. 2009) (denying relief under identical language found in Utah s enactment of the UCEA); Martin v. Pittman, 244 F. App x 597, 602 (5th Cir. 2007) ( By its express terms, the UCEA ... applies only to transfers between the several states, e.g., Pennsylvania to New Jersey in Cuyler. Unlike the IADA, the UCEA's definition of State does not include the federal government. ). The Court will therefore deny the petition and grant the Fayette County s Sheriff s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Noland s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 2] is DENIED. 2. The Fayette County Sheriff s motion to dismiss [R. 5] is GRANTED. 3. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. Signed on August 4, 2011

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.